Quote from: Triple Zero on January 11, 2010, 10:18:27 AMi thought utilitarianism also added that you should not feel bad about making that choice.
Cain, absolutely. I just say I find myself agreeing more often with utilitarianism than Kantianism.
Guy Incognito, the textbook example against utilitarianism:
scenario A
you're in charge of a railroad switch. due to an error somewhere, the train is about to go into a mountain tunnel where 5 people are working on the ventilation somethings and if the train goes there, they will all get smashed and die. you could throw the switch to save them and the train will take a different route. except it's really not your day because that route also goes to a mountain tunnel where 1 guy is working.
so your choice is, should I do nothing and let 5 people die, or should I throw the switch and let 1 person die?
utlitarianism says throw the switch and let 1 person die.
scenario B
you're a doctor in a hospital and you are treating 1 person with a appendectomy. he is still asleep under narcosis but he will be fine. while treating him you happen to find out he has a very rare bloodtype. that night, it's really not your night, because 5 people come in and they all suffer from severe blood loss from a shoggoth attack. they need blood transfusion or they will die. of course (because this is a shitty night remember) these 5 people all have this same very rare bloodtype as your sleeping patient. you can save these 5 people by drawing blood from him, but it will be too much cause he's weakened from the operation and he will die.
so your choice is, should I do nothing and let 5 people die, or should I take action and let 1 person die?
utlitarianism says again to let 1 person die.
--------
because it is The Right Thing To Do.